Steven J. Dick - What Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Mean?

[@amirhesamnoroozi3741]

In 3:20 I think Robert put forward a delicate implicit Indication that in the context of anthropic principle even thinking about multiverse confirms the fact that multiverse indeed exists.

[@zeesan9004]

Isn't wondering about the constant being fine tuned , same as wondering about the value of pi being fine tuned for circle to be round?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

In principle, time could be used to measure constants of nature, fine tuning / multiverse, quantum inflation field?

[@madmax2976]

Question: "Why should the universe be built in such a way that...?" Possible Answer: "For whatever way it might have come to be the same question could be asked. Why should it not be this way or that way or any of a million other possible ways?" The difference is that In the universe we have, which is 99.999999% deadly to life as we know it, there happens to be a species intelligent enough to ask the question. So, we think we're special and presume that any universe without us in it would be a waste. And if one begins by thinking human beings were destined to exist, then there's no need for a fine-tuning argument since they would have already assumed the conclusion.

[@thesprawl2361]

+madmax2976 Not many of the atheists or theists or in-betweens who deal seriously with the fine-tuning question ask why a universe which is, essentially, fatal to all life within it would be the kind of universe an omnipotent creator would come up with. If the creator can make anything, a universe that's as empty and instantly fatal to life as ours doesn't seem to scream intelligent design to me.

[@madmax2976]

The Sprawl Well, it depends on how one looks at it I think. One could say, "Look at how deadly the universe is! Isn't it very odd and beyond probability that life such as our exists here by accident? Someone must tinkering!" And that's the problem - it's all about trying to compute probabilities with too many variables and unknowns. How do we know what universal constants could be changed and by what magnitude? How do we know what might develop after 10 billion years in some other universe with different constants? Once we start hypothesizing about different constants who's to say what could or could not come about? But again, if we start with the idea that life as we know it had to come about or was intended to come about, the game is up and the conclusion has already been assumed.

[@itsjustameme]

Im not about to accept the premise that the universe IS fine-tuned for life in the first place without a fight. - It is true that the universe is life-supporting. - It might be true that the universe could have been different - It might also be true that if the universe could have been different that many if not most of the possible universes could not support life. None of this shows that it is fine-tuned for life. And leave aside the multiverse for a second despite it being a perfect refutation of the argument - lets take that off the table. But where among the bullet-points I have stated above does it follow that the universe is the result of fine-tuning for life specifically? There are an infinite number of things that this universe permits that might be a comparative rarity if you start meddling with the constants of the universe. Who is to say that the universe is not fine-tuned for black holes for instance? Or quasars? Or spinning rocks? Isn't it a bit presumptuous and bio-centric to think that life specifically must be the goal of the fine-tuning even if there is a fine-tuner? For all I know life is a by product - or maybe even an impurity - in a universe created for some other purpose. THAT is the case I want to see argued. That and also the fact that the universe being life-supporting is not the same as it being ideal for life. I don't know what a universe ideal for life would look like, but this universe doesn't exactly strike me as belonging to that group. So if there is a fine-tuner who in fact has made the universe for life then I would like to hear why we ended up with such a second rate job.

[@gotinogaden]

+itsjustameme _So if there is a fine-tuner who in fact has made the universe for life then I would like to hear why we ended up with such a second rate job._ The glaring issue with that objection is that the results of a design process have to be evaluated in accordance to the _purpose_ of the designer. It is possible that the universe was not designed as a place of joy, happiness and safety. Actually, this is what the empirical data suggests, given the existence of many natural processes like hurricanes and floods that are extremely dangerous, as well as the eventual death of the whole universe. Take a look at John Hick's "soul-making theodicy" for an explanation of why an omnipotent and all-good being would allow such a world to exist. _Isn't it a bit presumptuous and bio-centric to think that life specifically must be the goal of the fine-tuning even if there is a fine-tuner?_ I could argue that it is presumptuous either way you decide to go about the topic. It may be presumptuous for us to conceive of ourselves as so ever important and having a center place in the universe, but it is also presumptuous to think that a greatly diminished view of ourselves and our place in the world is any better. And besides, our moral sentiments in this case have nothing to do with the truth - or falsity - of the fine-tunning proposition. It could very well be the case that we're special, or that we aren't. So, it is a moot point to begin with. _he multiverse for a second despite it being a perfect refutation of the argument _ Except that it isn't; it is just another metaphysical theory that would have to be argued for.

[@itsjustameme]

ThePSXHive RE: The universe being second rate - You wrote: *The glaring issue with that objection is that the results of a design process have to be evaluated in accordance to the purpose of the designer. It is possible that the universe was not designed as a place of joy, happiness and safety. Actually, this is what the empirical data suggests, given the existence of many natural processes like hurricanes and floods that are extremely dangerous, as well as the eventual death of the whole universe. Take a look at John Hick's "soul-making theodicy" for an explanation of why an omnipotent and all-good being would allow such a world to exist.* So you have essentially made the fine-tuning unfalsifiable. By this means ANY conceivable universe could in principle have been finely tuned by a deity with some larger purpose for us that we are not aware of (or with some larger purpose for black holes, quasars, or spinning rocks for that matter). Doesn't this fly in the face of the observation that led people to conclude that there was fine-tuning going on in the first place? If ANY conceivable universe where life exist could equally well have been postulated as fine-tuned and used as evidence for fine-tuning being the case then the argument is worthless and redundant. And doubly so when the plan and motifs of this postulated deity in question is said to be outside of our ability to understand. The argument simply falls apart under its own unfalsifiability. We could however IF we accept the premise of a fine-yuner try to work backwards to try to determine what kind of life he has designed the universe for. What his values are so to say. But as Terry Pratchett famously pointed out in one of his books the creator seems to care a lot more for designing cockroaches than humans... RE: Us being bio-centric in assuming the universe being made for us - You wrote: *I could argue that it is presumptuous either way you decide to go about the topic. It may be presumptuous for us to conceive of ourselves as so ever important and having a center place in the universe, but it is also presumptuous to think that a greatly diminished view of ourselves and our place in the world is any better. And besides, our moral sentiments in this case have nothing to do with the truth - or falsity - of the fine-tunning proposition. It could very well be the case that we're special, or that we aren't. So, it is a moot point to begin with.* How is it the case the we are "greatly diminished" by this view? I don't see how that is the case. In fact I don't see how we are any more diminished by living in a universe where we are by-products than the idea that there isn't a fine-tuner in the first place? The two scenarios are in fact similar in every way I should think matters in this context. I simply cannot see what you mean. RE: The multiverse being a perfect refutation of the fine-tuning argument - You wrote: *Except that it isn't; it is just another metaphysical theory that would have to be argued for.* Lets go over the argument for a second shall we. Here is what we have: Christians have been giving me this proposition: P1 - The universe appears to be fine-tuned. P2 - The apparent fine-tuning is evidence for there being a god. C - This apparent fine-tuning is therefore evidence for there being a fine-tuner i.e. a god. And by introducing the multiverse hypothesis into the mix I am correcting their argument by saying that the apparent fine tuning could ALSO be the result of there being a multiverse. This is not me "ruling out" the existence of a god on the basis of a belief in a multiverse. It is not me arguing that there are other universes. It is just a way of showing Christians that their chain of logic fails. The argument simply doesn't lead to there being a god in the way they think it does. For all I know there might well be a god out there - but until I see some evidence for him actually existing I will consider him to be an unproven hypothesis that is now bumped down to be at least on par with the also unproven multiverse hypothesis. And there are plenty of other hypotheses we could add to the argument. By saying for instance that there is a fine-tuning for instance the argument assumes that the universe could in fact have been different. If we factor this into the argument as well as the multiverse hypothesis we end up with the fine-tuning argument looking something like this: P1 - Under some assumptions with regards to the poorly understood fundamental nature of the universe it MIGHT be the case that IF the universe could have been different from what it is, THEN the universe appears to be fine-tuned or it could possibly be one of the more favorable outcomes of a stochastic variable among a large population of different universes. P2 - If it is the case that the universe could have been different from the way it is, THEN this apparent fine-tuning might therefore be evidence for there being a fine-tuning god OR a multiverse. C - Therefore it may be the case that there is a god or some other alternative. Is this really an argument you would like to put forward as evidence for your god? Really? THAT is why I think the multiverse hypothesis obliterates the fine-tuning argument.

[@thesprawl2361]

+itsjustameme Nicely put.

[@itsjustameme]

The Sprawl Thank you c",) And wouldn't you know it. Once again I spend my time and energy addressing something and once again it seems like the person who asked me to do so and whose criticism I was addressing (ThePSXHive in this case) has gone away with no intention of even reading what I wrote. So I'm happy that at least one person read and enjoyed it.

[@scabw]

+itsjustameme I think what's objectionable in regard to the multiverse theory, is that it is so elaborate. You would have to have a tremendous amount of other universes in order to explain away the odds of there being a single universe as fine-tuned for life as we are talking about. It seems simpler to accept an intelligent designer than to go to the length of positing countless other universes besides this one. Also, I guess if you want to object to the claim that the universe is fine-tuned, you'd have to take into account what claims are made in regard to the fine-tuning. It's not claimed that most of the universe is suitable for life, and it's not claimed that the universe is all cozy and super-friendly for life. The very existence of life at all, let alone intelligent life, is surprising, given how much more variations of the universe inhospitable to life (even more so in regard to intelligent life) are imaginable and possibly could have existed instead of this universe. But somehow -- one could say miraculously -- a universe suitable for intelligent life does exist.

[@LetReasonPrevail1]

The Universe is "fine tuned" for the production of Black Holes, and we are an entirely-insignificant, possibly-necessary byproduct of black hole production.

[@probablechoices]

It's the patterns towards the outer edges of a plaint blot on the wall that catch our eye, but it's all the same paint blot, we are just as significant as the Big Bang cause it's still banging, as it were.

[@31428571J]

Even if this was the only universe (no multiverse), the anthropic principal would still work.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

How about 'What would a fine tuned universe mean?'

[@cocoarecords]

very interesting

[@johnraba8669]

The multi universe argument only kicks the can down the road. What caused the multi universe.

[@daves2520]

The universe was created by God - take time to read the book of Genesis.

[@kreyvegas1]

Once again, Robert is in an awful hurry to prove the impossible to prove. I think he doesn't have anything close to a real grasp on any of these subjects he asks questions people about.

[@GeoCoppens]

He wants to appear a very DEEP thinker!